Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
July 6, 2022
The times call for righteous anger
Published by Tom Sullivan on July 6, 2022
It seems Jennifer Rubin is on the same page as my earlier post below. Pres. Joe Biden’s hope to “lower the temperature” in Washington, she writes, “has too frequently ceded rhetorical energy to Republicans and has demoralized his own side by coming across as blasé in the face of outrageous developments.”
snip//
Telling Democrats you’re fighting for them or that you will fight once elected is obvious empty rhetoric that will not get them off their couches to vote this fall. People need to see you fighting. At least throwing rhetorical punches.
In this environment, Biden gets rolled. Govs. J.B. Pritzker (Ill.) and Gavin Newsom (Calif.) get it. The White House? Not so much.
Cedric L. Richmond, a former Democratic representative from Louisiana now works in the Biden White House. “The country didn’t elect Joe Biden because they wanted a Democratic Donald Trump to go out there every day and divide the country more,” he told CNN, suggesting more aggressiveness from Biden is the “the same foolishness that got us Donald Trump.”
And that’s the same foolishness that loses elections when Trump is not on the ballot.
Rubin responds:
That’s just daft. It shows an utter lack of appreciation for the nature of the GOP and the critical need to mobilize the rest of the country in defense of democratic values. Surely, Democrats are hoping the rest of the administration doesn’t buy into this.
[…]
Unlike Biden, Democrats up and down the ballot appear to recognize we are at an inflection point. Rather than wait for direction from the president or some unified message from advocacy groups, they should continue doing precisely what they have begun: Highlight the cruelty, extremism and unfitness of their opponents. Run on women’s autonomy and ending senseless gun violence. Put initiatives on the ballot to draw voters to the polls. Condemn a radical, out-of-control Supreme Court and vow to reform it — by filibuster reform if necessary.
The problem is, Paul Waldman once acknowledged, “what the system really rewards is the appearance of fighting for something, rather than waging actual battles where the outcome makes a difference …”
In fact, “the single most important bias in the news media is not in favor of any ideology, it’s a bias toward conflict. Fights, whether genuine or contrived, have all the dramatic elements that outlets look to build our stories out of. ” Why do Republicans seem to get more face time in the media? They generate conflict.
A fireside chat won’t cut it. A little fire-breathing might.
The times call for righteous anger
https://digbysblog.net/2022/07/06/the-times-call-for-righteous-anger/The times call for righteous anger
Published by Tom Sullivan on July 6, 2022
It seems Jennifer Rubin is on the same page as my earlier post below. Pres. Joe Biden’s hope to “lower the temperature” in Washington, she writes, “has too frequently ceded rhetorical energy to Republicans and has demoralized his own side by coming across as blasé in the face of outrageous developments.”
snip//
Telling Democrats you’re fighting for them or that you will fight once elected is obvious empty rhetoric that will not get them off their couches to vote this fall. People need to see you fighting. At least throwing rhetorical punches.
“The murmurs of dissatisfaction rolling through the Democratic Party in part stem from a sense that his serene, platitudinous language and disinclination to fully denounce the GOP only minimize the dangers we face and disguises the extremism of democracy’s opponents,” Rubin writes.
In this environment, Biden gets rolled. Govs. J.B. Pritzker (Ill.) and Gavin Newsom (Calif.) get it. The White House? Not so much.
Cedric L. Richmond, a former Democratic representative from Louisiana now works in the Biden White House. “The country didn’t elect Joe Biden because they wanted a Democratic Donald Trump to go out there every day and divide the country more,” he told CNN, suggesting more aggressiveness from Biden is the “the same foolishness that got us Donald Trump.”
And that’s the same foolishness that loses elections when Trump is not on the ballot.
Rubin responds:
That’s just daft. It shows an utter lack of appreciation for the nature of the GOP and the critical need to mobilize the rest of the country in defense of democratic values. Surely, Democrats are hoping the rest of the administration doesn’t buy into this.
[…]
Unlike Biden, Democrats up and down the ballot appear to recognize we are at an inflection point. Rather than wait for direction from the president or some unified message from advocacy groups, they should continue doing precisely what they have begun: Highlight the cruelty, extremism and unfitness of their opponents. Run on women’s autonomy and ending senseless gun violence. Put initiatives on the ballot to draw voters to the polls. Condemn a radical, out-of-control Supreme Court and vow to reform it — by filibuster reform if necessary.
The problem is, Paul Waldman once acknowledged, “what the system really rewards is the appearance of fighting for something, rather than waging actual battles where the outcome makes a difference …”
In fact, “the single most important bias in the news media is not in favor of any ideology, it’s a bias toward conflict. Fights, whether genuine or contrived, have all the dramatic elements that outlets look to build our stories out of. ” Why do Republicans seem to get more face time in the media? They generate conflict.
A fireside chat won’t cut it. A little fire-breathing might.
July 6, 2022
McConnell wishes someone would figure out a way to keep 'these troubled young men' from getting guns
Laura Clawson
Daily Kos Staff
Wednesday July 06, 2022 · 9:21 AM EDT
Share this article
After years of standing in the way of any legislation that might really do something to prevent mass shootings, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had a lament in the wake of the killing of seven people and wounding of dozens more in Highland Park, Illinois. “We have got to figure out some way to identify these troubled young men & it's very complicated because after every one of these shootings there are people who say ‘Oh you know I thought he was pretty strange. I wish I notified somebody about it,’” McConnell said.
Funny story: Members of the alleged Highland Park shooter’s family called the police on him twice in 2019 and he still got a gun license in early 2020, and repeatedly passed background checks allowing him to purchase firearms that year. Does that mean Mitch McConnell would support tightening the licensing and background check process to exclude people with the alleged shooter’s record?
Ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah, right. This is a guy who only in the wake of the Uvalde school shooting that killed 19 children and two teachers even allowed the Senate to close the boyfriend loophole, taking guns away from people with convictions for domestic violence against people they were only dating and not married to, living with, or have a child with. Prior to that, Democrats had tried to close the boyfriend loophole in a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and McConnell and his Senate Republicans blocked the entire bill until that part was removed.
So, no, Mitch McConnell is not serious about keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, and the fact that after 19 children were slaughtered he relented and allowed a law to pass blocking people with domestic violence convictions from having guns does not signal some kind of change of heart. It signals how extreme he is and how much pressure it takes to get him to shift even a little bit to allow the most obvious policy.
McConnell’s entire career is about backing the gun ownership rights of people like Robert E. Crimo III, right up until he piously says it’s just too bad there wasn’t a way to keep them from killing seven people.
In September 2019, a relative of Crimo’s contacted the police because the then-19-year-old had a collection of knives and “said he was going to kill everyone,” according to a police spokesman. Police took the knives, then returned them the same day because his father said the knives belonged to him and were just being stored in his son’s closet. I’m just going to float the thought that perhaps knives also shouldn’t be returned to someone with the poor judgment to store them in the closet of a disturbed teenager making death threats.
Earlier in 2019, police were called to the Crimo residence because of an alleged suicide attempt by the younger Crimo—another reason his father’s judgment might be called into question on those knives. But that’s nothing compared to the fact that after the visit in which the knives were confiscated because the son was saying “he was going to kill everyone,” the father helped him get a license to buy guns. At 19, he needed a family member to sponsor him, and his father did so.
This is how our nation’s latest mass shooter got his weapons: legally, because law enforcement didn’t have a reason to block him despite multiple calls about him intending to harm himself or others. He told us he wasn’t going to hurt anyone, the police say in defense of the decision. Okay, guys. But those are the laws. And those are the laws directly because of Mitch McConnell.
If anyone suggests to you that this shows that gun laws are not the answer because these guns were obtained legally, please point out that this shows that much, much stronger gun laws are needed. Here’s a thought: What if the presumption wasn’t that of course you can have high-powered rifles unless you have been extensively caught up in the criminal justice system? What if the presumption was that you had to show you would be a responsible gun owner, had to get trained, and still probably couldn’t have the kind of gun designed for mowing down dozens of people within moments?
“We have got to figure out some way to identify these troubled young men,” says McConnell, as he defends a system in which two calls to the police about a troubled young man threatening harm are not enough to keep him from legally acquiring guns months later. There’s a clue here! But of course McConnell doesn’t actually care. He’s just saying what he has to say to keep pressure from building up for Congress to take more serious action on guns.
McConnell wishes someone would figure out a way to keep 'these troubled young men' from getting guns
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/6/2108737/-McConnell-wishes-someone-would-figure-out-a-way-to-keep-these-troubled-young-men-from-getting-gunsMcConnell wishes someone would figure out a way to keep 'these troubled young men' from getting guns
Laura Clawson
Daily Kos Staff
Wednesday July 06, 2022 · 9:21 AM EDT
Share this article
After years of standing in the way of any legislation that might really do something to prevent mass shootings, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had a lament in the wake of the killing of seven people and wounding of dozens more in Highland Park, Illinois. “We have got to figure out some way to identify these troubled young men & it's very complicated because after every one of these shootings there are people who say ‘Oh you know I thought he was pretty strange. I wish I notified somebody about it,’” McConnell said.
Funny story: Members of the alleged Highland Park shooter’s family called the police on him twice in 2019 and he still got a gun license in early 2020, and repeatedly passed background checks allowing him to purchase firearms that year. Does that mean Mitch McConnell would support tightening the licensing and background check process to exclude people with the alleged shooter’s record?
Ha ha ha ha ha. Yeah, right. This is a guy who only in the wake of the Uvalde school shooting that killed 19 children and two teachers even allowed the Senate to close the boyfriend loophole, taking guns away from people with convictions for domestic violence against people they were only dating and not married to, living with, or have a child with. Prior to that, Democrats had tried to close the boyfriend loophole in a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and McConnell and his Senate Republicans blocked the entire bill until that part was removed.
So, no, Mitch McConnell is not serious about keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, and the fact that after 19 children were slaughtered he relented and allowed a law to pass blocking people with domestic violence convictions from having guns does not signal some kind of change of heart. It signals how extreme he is and how much pressure it takes to get him to shift even a little bit to allow the most obvious policy.
McConnell’s entire career is about backing the gun ownership rights of people like Robert E. Crimo III, right up until he piously says it’s just too bad there wasn’t a way to keep them from killing seven people.
In September 2019, a relative of Crimo’s contacted the police because the then-19-year-old had a collection of knives and “said he was going to kill everyone,” according to a police spokesman. Police took the knives, then returned them the same day because his father said the knives belonged to him and were just being stored in his son’s closet. I’m just going to float the thought that perhaps knives also shouldn’t be returned to someone with the poor judgment to store them in the closet of a disturbed teenager making death threats.
Earlier in 2019, police were called to the Crimo residence because of an alleged suicide attempt by the younger Crimo—another reason his father’s judgment might be called into question on those knives. But that’s nothing compared to the fact that after the visit in which the knives were confiscated because the son was saying “he was going to kill everyone,” the father helped him get a license to buy guns. At 19, he needed a family member to sponsor him, and his father did so.
This is how our nation’s latest mass shooter got his weapons: legally, because law enforcement didn’t have a reason to block him despite multiple calls about him intending to harm himself or others. He told us he wasn’t going to hurt anyone, the police say in defense of the decision. Okay, guys. But those are the laws. And those are the laws directly because of Mitch McConnell.
If anyone suggests to you that this shows that gun laws are not the answer because these guns were obtained legally, please point out that this shows that much, much stronger gun laws are needed. Here’s a thought: What if the presumption wasn’t that of course you can have high-powered rifles unless you have been extensively caught up in the criminal justice system? What if the presumption was that you had to show you would be a responsible gun owner, had to get trained, and still probably couldn’t have the kind of gun designed for mowing down dozens of people within moments?
“We have got to figure out some way to identify these troubled young men,” says McConnell, as he defends a system in which two calls to the police about a troubled young man threatening harm are not enough to keep him from legally acquiring guns months later. There’s a clue here! But of course McConnell doesn’t actually care. He’s just saying what he has to say to keep pressure from building up for Congress to take more serious action on guns.
July 6, 2022
Cheating GOP States Want Covid Funds To Cut Taxes For Rich
Nearly Two Dozen GOP States Attempting to Use Covid Relief Funds for Tax Cuts
By Common Dreams — July 6, 2022
Republican leaders in nearly two dozen U.S. states are attempting—potentially in violation of federal law—to use coronavirus relief funds approved by Congress last year to finance tax cuts instead of devoting the money to combating the ongoing pandemic and its economic consequences.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that GOP officials are working to subvert a provision in the American Rescue Plan (ARP) that bars states from using money from a $350 billion Covid-19 aid program "to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue."
Last March, just days after President Joe Biden signed the ARP into law, 13 Republican state attorneys general sued the Biden administration over that provision, decrying it as an "unconstitutional assault on state sovereignty." In the nearly year and a half since the GOP officials filed suit, numerous Republican states have moved to slash taxes—often in ways that primarily benefit rich households and profitable businesses.
Whitney Tucker and Coty Novak of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted earlier this year that Iowa—one of the states that joined the legal action against the Biden administration—replaced its "graduated personal income tax with a flat 3.9% tax while retaining credits and deductions that would allow wealthy Iowans to pay even less."
"Lawmakers in multiple states are pushing deep tax cuts as states see stronger-than-expected revenues driven largely by the federal government's robust fiscal response to the Covid-19 recession," Tucker and Novak observed. "Iowa, Mississippi, South Carolina, and West Virginia are pushing for income tax cuts that would deliver outsized gains to wealthy residents and profitable corporations."
snip//
Republished from Common Dreams (Jake Johnson, staff writer) under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Cheating GOP States Want Covid Funds To Cut Taxes For Rich
https://crooksandliars.com/2022/07/cheating-gop-states-use-covid-funds-taxCheating GOP States Want Covid Funds To Cut Taxes For Rich
Nearly Two Dozen GOP States Attempting to Use Covid Relief Funds for Tax Cuts
By Common Dreams — July 6, 2022
Republican leaders in nearly two dozen U.S. states are attempting—potentially in violation of federal law—to use coronavirus relief funds approved by Congress last year to finance tax cuts instead of devoting the money to combating the ongoing pandemic and its economic consequences.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that GOP officials are working to subvert a provision in the American Rescue Plan (ARP) that bars states from using money from a $350 billion Covid-19 aid program "to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue."
Last March, just days after President Joe Biden signed the ARP into law, 13 Republican state attorneys general sued the Biden administration over that provision, decrying it as an "unconstitutional assault on state sovereignty." In the nearly year and a half since the GOP officials filed suit, numerous Republican states have moved to slash taxes—often in ways that primarily benefit rich households and profitable businesses.
Whitney Tucker and Coty Novak of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted earlier this year that Iowa—one of the states that joined the legal action against the Biden administration—replaced its "graduated personal income tax with a flat 3.9% tax while retaining credits and deductions that would allow wealthy Iowans to pay even less."
"Lawmakers in multiple states are pushing deep tax cuts as states see stronger-than-expected revenues driven largely by the federal government's robust fiscal response to the Covid-19 recession," Tucker and Novak observed. "Iowa, Mississippi, South Carolina, and West Virginia are pushing for income tax cuts that would deliver outsized gains to wealthy residents and profitable corporations."
snip//
"In a flurry of court filings, many of the states argued for the ability to move money around freely—plugging federal dollars into various parts of their budgets, for example, then using the savings to pay for state tax cuts," Romm reported. "Republicans have won nearly every federal lawsuit, convincing judge after judge that the rules are unconstitutional. The Treasury Department repeatedly has appealed, but the decisions for now have left the Biden administration unable to enforce the rules in much of the country."
Republished from Common Dreams (Jake Johnson, staff writer) under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
July 6, 2022
Digby's Hullabaloo Posts
Here Come the Christian Nationalists
Published by digby on July 5, 2022
“Just mount up and ride to the sounds of the guns, and they are all over this country” — Rick Scott
These people aren’t fringe anymore. They have a super-majority on the Supreme Court and they are all armed to the teeth:
I’ll just let you sit with that for a while.
We’ve been writing about this stuff here for a very long time. It’s gotten much more organized and much more mainstream as you can see by the fact that US Senator Rick Scott who is not even thought of as one of the true crazies in the GOP (although he is.) And look at the violent imagery these leaders are evoking among a fanatical following that is also armed with deadly weapons. We’re sitting on a powder keg.
"We're sitting on a powder keg"
https://digbysblog.net/2022/07/05/here-come-the-christian-nationalists/Digby's Hullabaloo Posts
Here Come the Christian Nationalists
Published by digby on July 5, 2022
“Just mount up and ride to the sounds of the guns, and they are all over this country” — Rick Scott
These people aren’t fringe anymore. They have a super-majority on the Supreme Court and they are all armed to the teeth:
snip//
A good place to gauge the spirit and intentions of the movement that brought us the radical majority on the Supreme Court is the annual Road to Majority Policy Conference. At this year’s event, which took place last month in Nashville, three clear trends were in evidence. First, the rhetoric of violence among movement leaders appeared to have increased significantly from the already alarming levels I had observed in previous years. Second, the theology of dominionism — that is, the belief that “right-thinking” Christians have a biblically derived mandate to take control of all aspects of government and society — is now explicitly embraced. And third, the movement’s key strategists were giddy about the legal arsenal that the Supreme Court had laid at their feet as they anticipated the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
They intend to use that arsenal — together with additional weaponry collected in cases like Carson v. Makin, which requires state funding of religious schools if private, secular schools are also being funded; and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which licenses religious proselytizing by public school officials — to prosecute a war on individual rights, not merely in so-called red state legislatures but throughout the nation.
snip//
The intensification of verbal warfare is connected to shifts in the Christian nationalist movement’s messaging and outreach, which were very much in evidence at the Nashville conference. Seven Mountains Dominionism — the belief that “biblical” Christians should seek to dominate the seven key “mountains” or “molders” of American society, including the government — was once considered a fringe doctrine, even among representatives of the religious right. At last year’s Road to Majority conference, however, there was a breakout session devoted to the topic. This year, there were two sessions, and the once arcane language of the Seven Mountains creed was on multiple speakers’ lips.
A good place to gauge the spirit and intentions of the movement that brought us the radical majority on the Supreme Court is the annual Road to Majority Policy Conference. At this year’s event, which took place last month in Nashville, three clear trends were in evidence. First, the rhetoric of violence among movement leaders appeared to have increased significantly from the already alarming levels I had observed in previous years. Second, the theology of dominionism — that is, the belief that “right-thinking” Christians have a biblically derived mandate to take control of all aspects of government and society — is now explicitly embraced. And third, the movement’s key strategists were giddy about the legal arsenal that the Supreme Court had laid at their feet as they anticipated the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
They intend to use that arsenal — together with additional weaponry collected in cases like Carson v. Makin, which requires state funding of religious schools if private, secular schools are also being funded; and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which licenses religious proselytizing by public school officials — to prosecute a war on individual rights, not merely in so-called red state legislatures but throughout the nation.
snip//
The intensification of verbal warfare is connected to shifts in the Christian nationalist movement’s messaging and outreach, which were very much in evidence at the Nashville conference. Seven Mountains Dominionism — the belief that “biblical” Christians should seek to dominate the seven key “mountains” or “molders” of American society, including the government — was once considered a fringe doctrine, even among representatives of the religious right. At last year’s Road to Majority conference, however, there was a breakout session devoted to the topic. This year, there were two sessions, and the once arcane language of the Seven Mountains creed was on multiple speakers’ lips.
I’ll just let you sit with that for a while.
We’ve been writing about this stuff here for a very long time. It’s gotten much more organized and much more mainstream as you can see by the fact that US Senator Rick Scott who is not even thought of as one of the true crazies in the GOP (although he is.) And look at the violent imagery these leaders are evoking among a fanatical following that is also armed with deadly weapons. We’re sitting on a powder keg.
July 5, 2022
Did You Know Congress Has The Ability To Limit The Supreme Court?
Neither did I until I read this!
By Susie Madrak — July 5, 2022
Well! This certainly cheered me up, and you should go read the whole thing. Via Politico Magazine:
more...
https://crooksandliars.com/2022/07/did-you-know-congress-has-ability-limit
Did You Know Congress Has The Ability To Limit The Supreme Court?
Did You Know Congress Has The Ability To Limit The Supreme Court?
Neither did I until I read this!
By Susie Madrak — July 5, 2022
Well! This certainly cheered me up, and you should go read the whole thing. Via Politico Magazine:
Critically, but less widely understood, the Constitution also grants Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over specific matters. Article III, Section 2 reads: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
At least one founder was clear about the intent of Section 2. Hamilton wrote, “From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconveniences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such exceptions, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences.”
Defenders of judicial review appropriately point to Federalist 78 as evidence that Hamilton believed the Constitution contained an implicit power of judicial review. But he also believed that Congress could adjust the court’s jurisdiction.
In practice, so few instances exist of jurisdictional stripping that its meaning and scope are open to debate. But it has happened. In the late 1860s, federal authorities jailed William McCardle, a newspaper editor, under provisions of the 1867 Military Reconstruction Act. McCardle sued for his freedom, citing the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867. Congress denied the justices jurisdiction in the matter, and the court conceded that it was powerless to act.
Writing several decades later, Justice Felix Frankfurter, an FDR appointee, noted that “Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is sub judice.” Chief Justice Warren Burger, whom President Richard Nixon placed on the bench, agreed, writing that Congress could pass simple legislation “limiting or prohibiting judicial review of its directives.”
No less than the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary — particularly, the Supreme Court — is limited in just how much power it can exert. But only if Congress and the president exercise their right to check its power.
At least one founder was clear about the intent of Section 2. Hamilton wrote, “From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconveniences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such exceptions, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences.”
Defenders of judicial review appropriately point to Federalist 78 as evidence that Hamilton believed the Constitution contained an implicit power of judicial review. But he also believed that Congress could adjust the court’s jurisdiction.
In practice, so few instances exist of jurisdictional stripping that its meaning and scope are open to debate. But it has happened. In the late 1860s, federal authorities jailed William McCardle, a newspaper editor, under provisions of the 1867 Military Reconstruction Act. McCardle sued for his freedom, citing the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867. Congress denied the justices jurisdiction in the matter, and the court conceded that it was powerless to act.
Writing several decades later, Justice Felix Frankfurter, an FDR appointee, noted that “Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is sub judice.” Chief Justice Warren Burger, whom President Richard Nixon placed on the bench, agreed, writing that Congress could pass simple legislation “limiting or prohibiting judicial review of its directives.”
No less than the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary — particularly, the Supreme Court — is limited in just how much power it can exert. But only if Congress and the president exercise their right to check its power.
more...
https://crooksandliars.com/2022/07/did-you-know-congress-has-ability-limit
July 4, 2022
My new Fourth of July tradition is getting so stoned I think I'm Canadian
I couldn't resist this title...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/7/3/2108163/-My-new-Fourth-of-July-tradition-is-getting-so-stoned-I-think-I-m-Canadian
My new Fourth of July tradition is getting so stoned I think I'm Canadian
Aldous J Pennyfarthing
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Sunday July 03, 2022 · 12:53 PM EDT
I like holiday parties as much as the next guy—so long as the next guy is Howard Hughes circa 1975. As such, I was unlikely to celebrate this Fourth of July with anything approaching the requisite vim or vigor.
The fireworks freak out our dogs, I don’t eat anything with nitrites, and even before COVID transformed me into a quasi-translucent proto-Gollum, I wasn’t much for the kinds of soirees where people show up at your house just because you asked them to. And thanks to the duly prescribed laws and regulations of the state of Oregon, which I’ve called home for the past seven years, cannabis has made me lazy and sapped my will to live … within 10 miles of another human being.
But hey, that’s just me. Cavorting through elysian fields of sticky-icky bud in lieu of grinding against shirtless louts in Dave Matthews Band mosh pits is my choice and prerogative—and that’s what America is all about. Or, at least, what it used to be about.
I have to admit, celebrating the Fourth of July this year feels a bit like breaking a ceremonial bottle of champagne against the half of the Titanic that hasn’t sunk yet. The Supreme Court—which believes the states can’t regulate gun ownership, must regulate women's bodies, and will have to act on their own if we’re to do anything about climate change—has begun to sap my enthusiasm for our grand 246-year-old experiment. The fact that five current SCOTUS justices were nominated by Republican presidents who originally lost the popular vote—and were confirmed by a grotesquely undemocratic Senate that gives Wyoming’s 580,000 residents the same representation as California’s 39 million residents—isn’t helping my mood any. Nor is the very real possibility that SCOTUS may decide partisan legislatures in heavily gerrymandered states have more right to choose your president than you do.
For some reason, the thought of permanent white Christian minority rule isn’t thrilling me this July 4. I used to think the U.S. was basically Canada with worse health care and marginally less Alan Thicke, but while we’re finding hell portals into the dark past, Canada continues to protect its citizens’ hard-won individual rights.
But hey, I’m an American—for better or worse. And until the thousand-year Trumpian Reich hangs me for sedition, I’ll stay and fight. It’s what patriots do. But not on July 4. On July 4, patriots get baked out of their gourds while yearning for better days—days that, ultimately, hinge on what we do today.
So celebrate in the manner in which you’ve become accustomed, and then sober up and come out swinging. And maybe—just maybe—we’ll one day be just as great as our neighbors to the north.
July 3, 2022
https://twitter.com/i/status/1543586004514250752
Schiff toed the same line in an interview with CBS’ Margaret Brennen, arguing Trump should not escape responsibility for the attack on the Capitol regardless of how politically difficult it could be to charge him.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1543607501727453188
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jan-6-panel-could-make-criminal-referral-against-trump-cheney-reveals?ref=home
Jan. 6 Panel Could Make Criminal Referral Against Trump, Cheney Reveals
Politics
Jan. 6 Panel Could Make Criminal Referral Against Trump, Cheney Reveals
STAY TUNED
“There could be more than one criminal referral,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) said on ABC Sunday morning.
Corbin Bolies
Media Reporter
Published Jul. 03, 2022 12:48PM ET
snip//
Host Jonathan Karl asked Cheney whether the committee could refer Trump for criminal prosecution and she replied “yes.”
“We may well as a committee have a view on that,” Cheney noted. “And if you just think about it from the perspective of—what kind of man knows that the mob is armed and sends the mob to attack the Capitol? And further incites that mob when his own vice president is under threat, when the Congress is under threat. It’s very chilling.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1543586004514250752
“The Justice Department doesn’t have to wait for the committee to make a criminal referral,” she added. “And there could be more than one criminal referral.”
Schiff toed the same line in an interview with CBS’ Margaret Brennen, arguing Trump should not escape responsibility for the attack on the Capitol regardless of how politically difficult it could be to charge him.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1543607501727453188
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jan-6-panel-could-make-criminal-referral-against-trump-cheney-reveals?ref=home
July 3, 2022
Florida officials plan to eradicate giant African land snails, again
July 2, 202211:55 AM ET
Tekella Foster
Once again, Florida plans to eradicate the giant African land snail, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture calls "one of the most damaging snails in the world."
It's a "highly invasive agricultural pest" that can feed on over 500 types of plants, USDA says.
A master gardener recently spotted Achatina (Lissachatina) fulica in New Port Richey, a city in Pasco County on Florida's Gulf Coast. The state agriculture department confirmed the snail sighting on June 23.
"These snails could be devastating to Florida agriculture and natural areas as they cause extensive damage to tropical and subtropical environments," the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services says.
The species has been eradicated in Florida twice before — in 1975 and 2021. It costs millions of dollars to get rid of them.
more...
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109535868/florida-officials-plan-to-eradicate-giant-african-land-snails-again
Florida officials plan to eradicate giant African land snails, again
Florida officials plan to eradicate giant African land snails, again
July 2, 202211:55 AM ET
Tekella Foster
Once again, Florida plans to eradicate the giant African land snail, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture calls "one of the most damaging snails in the world."
It's a "highly invasive agricultural pest" that can feed on over 500 types of plants, USDA says.
A master gardener recently spotted Achatina (Lissachatina) fulica in New Port Richey, a city in Pasco County on Florida's Gulf Coast. The state agriculture department confirmed the snail sighting on June 23.
"These snails could be devastating to Florida agriculture and natural areas as they cause extensive damage to tropical and subtropical environments," the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services says.
The species has been eradicated in Florida twice before — in 1975 and 2021. It costs millions of dollars to get rid of them.
more...
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109535868/florida-officials-plan-to-eradicate-giant-african-land-snails-again
July 2, 2022
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/30/2107483/-I-don-t-get-it-My-first-KOS-rant
"I don't get it ..."
He/she's got a point even though we applaud Hutchinson for finally doing the right thing.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/30/2107483/-I-don-t-get-it-My-first-KOS-rant
I don't get it ... My first KOS rant
dablock
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Thursday June 30, 2022 · 12:23 PM EDT
Dear fellow KOS readers,
After reading April Siese’s June 28th article on “Trump’s Truth Social Meltdown” (www.dailykos.com/...), I replied to another reader’s comment about how he or she believes Cassidy Hutchinson “is brave and ethical.” In my reply, I did credit Hutchinson with bravery, but I had to disagree with her being ethical. My reply prompted others to reply that they felt sorry for me, that they thought I’m a horrible person and that he or she would blocked me if I made further comments.
I have to say that I just don’t get it. Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but I just don’t understand the thought process that leads them to those opinions.
Did Ms. Hutchinson do the right thing? Yes.
Was Ms. Hutchinson brave to testify against Trump and Meadows? Yes.
Will Ms. Hutchinson be harassed and threatened by the Trump base? Yes.
Is Ms. Hutchinson an ethical person? No.
So, what leads me to that last conclusion?
Ms. Hutchinson is an adult. A young adult yes, but she’s still an adult who should know right from wrong. She’s an adult who chose to work for Steve Scalise, who is a liar and an insurrection supporter. She chose to take a high-level position in the Trump administration understanding that Trump is a racist, misogynist, serial liar, emotionally unstable, narcissistic, and so on and so on. She then also took on a position working with Mark Meadows who had made numerous racists statements as a member of Congress. This belies the good moral compass that another KOS reader gave her credit for having. I credit Ms. Hutchinson with not being an insurrectionist, but that is not enough to make her a good person much less any kind of hero. Did Ms. Hutchinson resign her position after the horror of January 6th? No, she did not. Did Ms. Hutchinson voluntarily submit her testimony to the January 6th Committee? No, she was subpoenaed.
The kicker for me is that, during her live testimony, she voluntarily offered up that she was highly supportive of the Trump administration’s policies. What kind of moral compass do you possess if you find goodness in: tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy; The Muslim Ban; family separations at the border; no transgender people in the military; the anti-NATO stance; deserting the Kurdish in Syria; giving Kim Jung Un the opportunity to stand on the world stage with a US President; kissing Putin’s ass in front of the entire world; telling Xi Jinping that the Uighur concentration camps are a good thing; mass murder of a few hundred thousand Americans by intentional neglect of the COVID-19 pandemic; and so many, many more degenerate policies? If you stand by those policies, your moral compass points to E which in this case stands for evil and not for east.
more...
After reading April Siese’s June 28th article on “Trump’s Truth Social Meltdown” (www.dailykos.com/...), I replied to another reader’s comment about how he or she believes Cassidy Hutchinson “is brave and ethical.” In my reply, I did credit Hutchinson with bravery, but I had to disagree with her being ethical. My reply prompted others to reply that they felt sorry for me, that they thought I’m a horrible person and that he or she would blocked me if I made further comments.
I have to say that I just don’t get it. Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but I just don’t understand the thought process that leads them to those opinions.
Did Ms. Hutchinson do the right thing? Yes.
Was Ms. Hutchinson brave to testify against Trump and Meadows? Yes.
Will Ms. Hutchinson be harassed and threatened by the Trump base? Yes.
Is Ms. Hutchinson an ethical person? No.
So, what leads me to that last conclusion?
Ms. Hutchinson is an adult. A young adult yes, but she’s still an adult who should know right from wrong. She’s an adult who chose to work for Steve Scalise, who is a liar and an insurrection supporter. She chose to take a high-level position in the Trump administration understanding that Trump is a racist, misogynist, serial liar, emotionally unstable, narcissistic, and so on and so on. She then also took on a position working with Mark Meadows who had made numerous racists statements as a member of Congress. This belies the good moral compass that another KOS reader gave her credit for having. I credit Ms. Hutchinson with not being an insurrectionist, but that is not enough to make her a good person much less any kind of hero. Did Ms. Hutchinson resign her position after the horror of January 6th? No, she did not. Did Ms. Hutchinson voluntarily submit her testimony to the January 6th Committee? No, she was subpoenaed.
The kicker for me is that, during her live testimony, she voluntarily offered up that she was highly supportive of the Trump administration’s policies. What kind of moral compass do you possess if you find goodness in: tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy; The Muslim Ban; family separations at the border; no transgender people in the military; the anti-NATO stance; deserting the Kurdish in Syria; giving Kim Jung Un the opportunity to stand on the world stage with a US President; kissing Putin’s ass in front of the entire world; telling Xi Jinping that the Uighur concentration camps are a good thing; mass murder of a few hundred thousand Americans by intentional neglect of the COVID-19 pandemic; and so many, many more degenerate policies? If you stand by those policies, your moral compass points to E which in this case stands for evil and not for east.
more...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/6/30/2107483/-I-don-t-get-it-My-first-KOS-rant
July 2, 2022
https://crooksandliars.com/2022/07/trump-allies-float-hes-too-fat-grab
Trump Allies Float That He's Too Fat To Grab Steering Wheels
Wow they are willing to fat shame Trump to keep him out of prison.
By Frances Langum — July 1, 2022
https://twitter.com/bluegal/status/1542857160832552962
Edit to add a BUT...
https://twitter.com/bearsaremean/status/1542539601885134848
more...
Trump Allies Float That He's Too Fat To Grab Steering Wheels
https://crooksandliars.com/2022/07/trump-allies-float-hes-too-fat-grab
Trump Allies Float That He's Too Fat To Grab Steering Wheels
Wow they are willing to fat shame Trump to keep him out of prison.
By Frances Langum — July 1, 2022
https://twitter.com/bluegal/status/1542857160832552962
Edit to add a BUT...
https://twitter.com/bearsaremean/status/1542539601885134848
more...
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,107
